Indian Journal of Urology Users online:1533  
Home Current Issue Ahead of print Editorial Board Archives Symposia Guidelines Subscriptions Login 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 36  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 21-25

Open surgery for pheochromocytoma: Current indications and outcomes from a retrospective cohort

1 Department of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
2 Department of Anaesthesiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
3 Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Rajeev Kumar
Department of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/iju.IJU_186_19

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Minimally invasive approaches are the current standard of care for pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma (PC/PG) surgery. However, a number of patients still undergo open surgery for these tumors. We evaluated the current indications and outcomes of open surgery for PC/PG to define the role of this approach. Methods: Data of patients undergoing PC/PG surgery between July 2008 and July 2017 were retrieved from our prospectively maintained electronic database and hospital records. Tumor characteristics, operative and recovery parameters, and complications were evaluated for indications of open procedure and outcomes. Results: During the study period, 106 patients underwent 124 procedures for PC/PG, including 18 simultaneous bilateral procedures. Surgeries included 102 adrenalectomies, 18 PG excisions, one partial adrenalectomy, and three partial cystectomies. Twenty-five (23.6%) patients (mean age 38.2 ± 16.1 years) underwent an open procedure, including four bilateral procedures. This included 16 adrenalectomies and 9 PG excisions. The indications for open surgery were unilateral large tumours (5; size 8–16, mean 11 cm), bilateral large tumours (2; size 6–10, mean 8.2 cm), retrocaval tumour extension (4), inter aortocaval PGs (8), Retro-mesenteric PG (1), concomitant procedures (3), and conversion from laparoscopy (2). Mean operative time was 217 ± 63.8 min, blood loss was 868 ± 734.2 ml, 11 patients required blood transfusion, and hospital stay was 6.44 ± 2.4 days. All these parameters were higher than for minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in this cohort. Three patients (12%) suffered a postoperative complication, and the rate of complications was not higher than MIS cohort (16%). Conclusions: Open surgery was most often indicated for large tumors or those located in the inter-aortocaval region. Most such procedures require large incisions and possible hepatic mobilization on the right side. The procedures can be safely completed with few complications.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded137    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal